Book All Semester Assignments at 50% OFF! ORDER NOW

Researching Primary and Secondary sources   

  1. The Legislation that was enacted in 1990 to protect the environment and making dropping and throwing litter a criminal offence is Environmental protection Act, 1990. (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) The Act has been amended several times since its enactment, the significant amendments whereof came in 2014 by The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014 brought about the most recent changes by raising the highest penalty charge notice for littering from £80 to £150 and giving local governments the authority to issue fixed penalty notices for leaving trash in a moving vehicle. The Littering from Vehicles (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018, which included a new littering penalty for vehicle owners under Section 88A of the Act, made the most recent amendment to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in 2018.
  2. Littering is a crime in England and Wales under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Littering is an offence that can result in a fine for the offender if it is dropped, deposited, or left in an open area on the ground, on a public road, or in any other public space. Other sections that pertain to “Litter” in the Act are as follows:
  3. Section 88 of the Act provides for the duty of local authorities to keep their areas clear of litter and refuse.
  4. Section 88A penalises littering from vehicles.
  5. Section 88B provides for guidance for littering enforcement for England and Wales
  6. Section 91 and 92 of the Act outline the powers of local authorities to issue litter abatement notices and outlines the summary for doing so.
  7. Section 92 provides for Litter clearing notice
  8. Sections 92A and 92B provides for appeal and failure to comply with litter clearing notices respectively
  9. Sections 93 and 94 provides provisions for street litter.
  10. Shopping and luggage trolleys are particularly included under Section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as modified by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005). This clause gives local governments the authority to pick off and dispose of abandoned shopping trolleys that are discovered on public property. A "shopping trolley" refers to a cart that is made available by a store owner to their customers, for the purpose of carrying the items that they have purchased from the store. It is important to note that this definition excludes any trolleys that are powered or motorized. The Act contains guidelines for handling abandoned shopping carts in Schedule 4. This schedule describes the procedures for locating the owner of the shopping cart and collecting removal charges, as well as the authority of municipal authorities to retrieve and dispose of abandoned shopping trolleys.

Local authorities are permitted, under the terms of Schedule 4, to enter private property and remove abandoned shopping carts, provided that certain requirements are met. The local government must, for instance, have a good reason to assume that the trolley has been abandoned and that removing it will protect the environment or the public's health and safety.

The local authorities must also take reasonable measures to locate the trolley's owner and notify them of the disposal plan. The local authorities must retain the trolley for a reasonable amount of time if the owner cannot be found before getting rid of it.

  1. The requirements for Integrated Waste Management Plans (IWMPs) in Scotland are outlined in Sections 44ZA to 44ZD of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  2. Local authorities in Scotland are required by section 44ZA to create an IWMP to manage waste in their jurisdiction. The IWMP must include a strategy for accomplishing the waste management goals as well as an assessment of the waste needs and the environmental effect of handling the trash.
  3. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) must approve the IWMP according to section 44ZB, and section 44ZC describes how to carry out the plan.
  4. When required, the IWMP may be modified in accordance with Section 44ZD, provided that the adjustment is purposeful and does not jeopardise the original plan's waste management goals.

Section 45B provides for National Waste Strategy: Scotland, Section 45C provides for separate collection of dry recyclable food waste. Section 53 and 54 provides duties regarding disposal of waste collected and special provisions for land occupied respectively. Section 56 provides for power of recycling waste, Section 57 provides for power of secretary of state with regard to acceptance, treatment etc. of waste. Section 83 provides for statutory nuisance and sections 123 and 124 provides for creation and grant of councils for England, Wales and Scotland.

Paraphrasing task

  1. Section 87 makes the act of throwing and leaving litter a punishable offence. It provides that Anybody who intentionally spreads, drops, or otherwise places trash in a location regulated by this provision and then leaves it there is in violation of this provision. Subsection 4A (a) and (b) provides the defence as If the act of disposing of litter falls under either of the following circumstances, no violation of the law mentioned in subsection (1) occurs: (a) it is legal under the authorization of applicable laws, or (b) it is performed with the agreement or permission of the person who owns, occupies, or manages the area where the litter is being deposited.

  2. Section 13(1) provides that the person conducting a prescribed procedure according to an authorization may be served with a notice ("an enforcement notice") if the enforcing authority believes that the person is violating or is likely to violate any of the conditions of the authorization.
  3. Section 13(2) provides that An enforcement notice must include the following information:

(a)a statement of the authority's opinion;

(b)a description of the breach or the circumstances that make it likely that it will occur, as applicable;

(c)a description of the actions required to correct the violation or to address the circumstances that make it likely that it will occur, as applicable; and

(d)a description of the time frame within which these measures must be taken.

(c) The definition the term "environmental pollution" refers to damage to the environment brought on by the discharge or escape (into any environmental medium) from the following sources: (a) the land on which governed waste [or extractive waste] is treated, (b) the land on which governed waste [or extractive waste] is kept, (c) the land in or on which governed waste [or extractive waste] is deposited, (d) fixed plant through which controlled waste [or extractive waste] is handled, kept, or thrown.

Reading cases 

Facts - A police officer requested the accused, Mr. Fagan, a driver, to move his automobile, which was partially parked on a walkway. Mr. Fagan required the officer to wait as he completed speaking with the woman in the automobile. He refused to move his car. The police officer stood in front of the automobile with one foot on the sidewalk and the other on the road as Mr Fagan sat in his vehicle. Due to alcohol consumption, Mr. Fagan's automobile struck the constable's foot by mistake. The policeman yelled in agony and told Mr. Fagan to move his car. As the policeman ordered him to take the vehicle off on his foot, Fagan yelled at him, refused to do so, and then switched the engine off. However, he moved a car after a little while. Fagan was found guilty of assaulting a police officer who was performing his duties. Fagan then filed an appeal against the judgement.

Defence(s) – Fagan appealed the judgment on the ground that at the time he drove over the foot of the police officer, he was lacking mens rea (guilty mind) to do so and the act of driving over the foot of the police officer was purely accidental. It was contended that the offence of committing assault on the police officer is matured when the actus reus (result of the act) in combined with the mens rea, lacking the latter the accused cannot be said to have committed the offence. He added that there cannot be an assault in omission to act.

James J. laid down the two-prong test to determine the commission of criminal offence. He talked about the differences between basic and particular intention offences, two categories of criminal charges. According to James J, crimes involving basic intent, like assault, call for the mens rea of either intention or recklessness. This implies that the alleged offender either had malicious intent or was careless about potential harm. On the other hand, crimes requiring a definite purpose to perform the crime, such theft or murder, need for a greater level of mens rea.

Distinguishing assault and battery and the medium to cause injury it was held that although the phrase "assault" technically refers to the use of unlawful force against another person without that person's agreement and is to be handled as such, in practicality it is often used interchangeably with the term "battery." According to the circumstances of the current instance, the claimed "attack" constituted a "battery." Our opinion is that whether a battery was inflicted during an attack either directly by the offender's body or via the use of a weapon or other tool that was in their control is irrelevant.

According to James J., as long as the mens rea was present at some time throughout the course of the act, an offence of basic intent might be committed regardless of whether the mens rea was established after the actus reus had been committed. In this instance, Mr. Fagan didn't have the mens rea when he drove into the officer's foot, but he did after he recognised what had transpired and didn't move his car. Assault is a fundamentally intentional act; hence he was guilty of it. Whether it was concurrent with the actus reus or thereafter, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused possessed the required mens rea at some point throughout the course of the crime. The "continuous act" theory, which has been used in subsequent instances, is recognised as a crucial element of criminal law.

Interpretation of statutory provision to given scenario.    

In the present factual matrix, section 88A of the Environment Protection Act, 1990 has the applicability. Section 88A penalizes throwing litter from the car and makes provision for fixed penalty if the offence is committed as shown under section 87 which provides that, “anybody who intentionally dumps, drops, or otherwise places trash in a location covered by this provision and then leaves it there is guilty of committing the offence of litter”. Section 88 thus provides that the keeper of a vehicle may be compelled to furnish a fixed penalty to a litter authority under rules that the Secretary of State may make if there are grounds to suspect that a litter offence in England has been incurred in relation to the vehicle. When litter is thrown, dropped, or deposited from a vehicle, and this action leads to a violation under section 87(1), the vehicle is deemed to have committed a littering offense, regardless of whether the vehicle's owner was responsible for the littering With respect to the “keeper” of vehicle, subsection (9) of section 88 provides that the term "keeper", in relation to a vehicle, refers to the person who has possession or control of the vehicle at the time when the littering offense occurs. If the vehicle is registered, the registered keeper is presumed to be the keeper at the time of the offense, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The presumption this provision raises is rebuttable presumption of law, meaning that court will presume that registered keeper is liable to pay the fine, regardless of the fact that the littering has been done by some other person than the keeper. With regard to the “registered car” the keeper means the person in whose name the car has been duly registered. To establish the contrary, the keeper has to adduce evidences to the satisfaction of the court that shift the burden from the keeper to the actual doer of the offence.

Since it is the settled position of law that Substantive penal laws are construed strictly to advance the legislative intent. As per the literal interpretation rule of the section, the car was registered in the name of Kevin’s father. By implication of this section, he has the duty to prevent the offence of litter from being committed. The car was taken out by Kevin and his friends who have just gotten their driving license. There was lack of responsibility and duty from Kevin’s father’s part. To establish that he could not be made liable to pay the penalty since car was driven by his son at the moment and his son threw the litter, he would have to establish that by all due diligence he could not have known that the offence could have been committed. The chances of this defence to be successful are very thin, since a group of boys taking out car not registered in any one’s name is reckless enough. There was legal duty and responsibility of Kevin’s father which he failed to comply.

Thus, the available options available with the Kevin’s father are (i) to pay the penalty (amount of fine) within 28 days (time -period to comply with the notice); or 14 days (to get the rebate in penalty) or (ii) challenge the fixed penalty notice with the relevant issuing “litter authority” whereby he would have to show evidences and prove that why he should not be made liable to receive the penalty.

Discussion Forum 2

Discussion Post

One of the best uses of the Internet of Things (IoT) is in smart automobiles, which have the capability of exchanging data with equipment both inside and outside the vehicle. Automated cars with superior artificial intelligence (AI) have the ability to revolutionize transportation, increase safety, and have a less environmental effect. However, the absence of a regulatory framework that can adequately handle problems brought on by the usage of this technology remains a source of worry. In particular, a significant problem that needs careful study is the liabilities of operators and insurers of autonomous cars.

There have been barrage of suggestions and deliberations as to fixing the liability. One alternative is to treat AVs as completely new products, passing new legislation outlining expectations for AV producers and defining standards for responsibility. Some academics have suggested strategies for incorporating AV technology into current regulations. For instance, Sophia Duffy and Jamie Hopkins suggested considering canine legislation as a workable remedy for AVs: Owners would be responsible for their cars, but only if they knew enough about them to know that they were risky and so showed neglect in their care and maintenance.Kyle Colonna has also argued that the current liability frameworks are beneficial in this situation, contrasting AVs with automatic vehicle transport systems like elevators (which are largely out of the control of the passengers), aeroplanes (which have had autopilots for the majority of the 20th century), trains, and commuter trains (which frequently run with negligible or no human supervision).Such cases are handled quite easily under the present tort system. Researchers have also suggested "no liability" systems, in which national tax-supported compensation funds compensate harmed parties without assigning blame. This would shield AV producers and AV drivers from potential penalties while encouraging the development and deployment of AVs.

The judges foresaw numerous possible liability-related legal problem areas. They outlined the requirement for a "bright-line difference" between circumstances where the AV (i.e., the vehicle's intelligence ( ai) is in charge and all those in which a human person is in charge of the car in liability cases. Several judges made the argument that, if the car is in charge, the car is the driver, and it must be considered as such for determining who is to blame. Similar to this, several of the judges thought that the manufacturer would be exclusively responsible for fully autonomous cars without driver control. The justices questioned whether AV users might be held accountable for an incident if they failed to keep the vehicle's software updated.

At this time, it is unclear how responsibility will be allocated and what impact that would have on insurance rates. If the autonomous system is to blame, injured third parties may turn to prosecuting the manufacturer or software supplier. Long-term, high liability concerns might reduce manufacturers' motivation to develop, delaying further advancements in AV consumers' safety.

Currently, the UK is the only nation that has selected a tolerance-oriented policy to manage liability and insurance risks; all other nations have either adopted no-response or control-oriented policies. The Centre for Connected & Autonomous Vehicles identified legal voids relating to responsibility and insurance towards the end of 2016 and suggested regulatory adjustments to the DfT. As a result, HC 143 was approved. The bill lays out a detailed list of the insurers' and AV owners' responsibilities in the event of an accident and in a variety of other situations.

When insured AVs cause accidents that result in death or property damage, insurers are immediately responsible Yet, an insurer's responsibility may be curtailed when the owner is thought to be at fault. So, the measure clears up any confusion on how insurance companies and covered victims engaged in AV accidents should be held accountable. In particular, the legislation guarantees that the current motor vehicle insurance programme would continue to cover liability for incidents involving AVs, giving accident victims quicker access to compensation. If the manufacturer can show that the car was not faulty when it was delivered and that the issue was discovered later as a result of scientific discoveries, they are also shielded under the Consumer Protection Act.

As such, there is no straight answer as who should be made liable when the AVs are involved in the accident. While in UK the law has much cleared the position and several key issues like privacy, and cyber security are under consideration, suggestions can be made regadrding the liability based on the parties involved. Blanketly imposing the liability on drivers in AV vehicles is legally abrupt and morally unjustifiable, however the proposition that immuning drivers from liability in AV vehicles may not fir well with conventional moral consideration but the morality has to be viewed with the lens of changing landscape in the wake of technology.

Manufacturer’s liability: Holding the producers of autonomous cars accountable for any accidents that may place due to an AI system malfunction is one possible solution to this problem. Under this strategy, the onus of liability would be shifted from drivers and insurers to the vehicle's creators. As a consequence of being held accountable for any incidents that occur as a direct consequence of their system failing, manufacturers would have a tremendous incentive to create safe and dependable AI systems. If the system is categorized as fault tolerant, and fault-free the liability should be strictly imputed.

Engineer’s liability: Holding software developers responsible for programming that is intrinsically flawed might be a solution. The code that powers autonomous cars is developed and tested by software programmers, and if the program is intrinsically defective and causes an accident, the software engineers should be held accountable. In order to identify whether the programming is to blame for the accident or whether other elements were involved, this strategy would require a detailed examination into its underlying causes. Also, when huge teams are involved in the code development, it could be difficult to keep certain programmers accountable.

Driver’s liability: The Self Driving cars are being produced with categorization that prescribe for degree of human interference. Ones which are claimed to fully automated where driver is for the sake of care and seeking destination, holding the driver responsible would be logically strained. Those which require active or passive human interference, where the occurrence of an accident could be attributed to driver’s action in not taking prompt control to giving faulty commands, the liability is rightly founded. However, as the technology it advancing it is being made self-evolving and growing. Thus, there are limited ways of holding drivers’ accountable. The statement that it would be morally unjustifiable to not hold drivers’ liable will be countered in cases where drivers are disabled and thus using SDVs for their enhancement functions. Now to impute that disabled people cannot be driver is actually ethically and morally wrong, when the first intended use and purpose of technology is to aid people in becoming efficient and capable, the conventional argument would lose its meaning.

References

Abdullah, Zuraidah, 'Driverless Vehicles Could Change Laws, Insurance Policies' (2016) The Straits Times http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/driverless-vehicles-could-change-laws-insurance-policies accessed 8 April 2023.

CCAV, 'Pathway to Driverless Cars: Proposals to Support Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and Automated Vehicle Technologies' (Crown, 2016) https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/advanced-driver-assistance-systems-and-automated-vehicle-technologies-supporting-their-use-in-the-uk accessed 8 April 2023.

Coates, Chris, 'UK Bill to Set a Precedent for Autonomous Car Legislation' (2017) https://www.dwf.law/news-events/legal-updates/2017/03/uk-bill-to-set-a-precedent-for-autonomous-car-legislation/ accessed 8 April 2023.

Colonna, Kyle, 'Autonomous Cars and Tort Liability' (2012) 4 Journal of Law, Technology and Internet 81, 91-109.

Copp, Christopher and Kemmelmeier, Markus, 'Are Judges and the Justice System Ready for Driverless Cars?' (2021) 105(2) Judicial Independence.

Duffy, Sophia H. and Hopkins, Jamie P., 'Sit, Stay, Drive: The Future of Autonomous Car Liability' (2013) 16 SMU Science and Technology Law Review 453, 469-71.

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Schedule IV.

HC 143, 'Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill HC 143' (UK Parliament, 2017) https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0143/cbill_2016-20170143_en_2.htm#pt1-l1g2 accessed 8 April 2023.

[1] Environmental Protection Act, 1990 Schedule IV

[2] Sophia H. Duffy and Jamie P. Hopkins, 'Sit, Stay, Drive: The Future of Autonomous Car Liability' (2013) 16 SMU Science and Technology Law Review 453, 469-71.

[3] Kyle Colonna, 'Autonomous Cars and Tort Liability' (2012) 4 Journal of Law, Technology and Internet 81, 91-109.

[4] Christopher Copp and Markus Kemmelmeier, 'Are Judges and the Justice System Ready for Driverless Cars?' (2021) 105(2) Judicial Independence.

[5] Zuraidah Abdullah, 'Driverless Vehicles Could Change Laws, Insurance Policies' (2016) The Straits Times http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/driverless-vehicles-could-change-laws-insurance-policies accessed 8 April 2023.

[6] CCAV, 'Pathway to Driverless Cars: Proposals to Support Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and Automated Vehicle Technologies' (Crown, 2016) https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/advanced-driver-assistance-systems-and-automated-vehicle-technologies-supporting-their-use-in-the-uk accessed 8 April 2023.

[7] HC 143, 'Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill HC 143' (UK Parliament, 2017) https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0143/cbill_2016-20170143_en_2.htm#pt1-l1g2 accessed 8 April 2023.

[8] CCAV (n 6).

[9] Chris Coates, 'UK Bill to Set a Precedent for Autonomous Car Legislation' (2017) https://www.dwf.law/news-events/legal-updates/2017/03/uk-bill-to-set-a-precedent-for-autonomous-car-legislation/ accessed 8 April 2023.

You Might Also Like:- 

Environmental Science Dissertation Ideas

What Assignments Do You Do In Law School?

Get It Done! Today

Country
Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
+
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts

Highlights

  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

    $10.00
  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

    $25.00
  • Total

    Free
  • Let's Start

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS

Customer Feedback

Check out what our Student community has to say about us.

Read More

Request Callback

My Assignment Services- Whatsapp Get 50% + 20% EXTRAAADiscount on WhatsApp

Need Assistance on your
existing assignment order?
refresh